[Patent document 1] JP-2000-255351 A
[Patent document 2] JP-2002-269697 A
[Patent document 3] JP-2004-280489 A
[Patent document 4] JP-2005-90502 A
[Patent document 5] JP-2007-198278 A
[Patent document 6] JP-2004-168085 A
[Patent document 7] JP-2004-42777 A
[Patent document 8] JP-2002-59796 A
[Patent document 9] JP-2005-9883 A
[Patent document 10] JP-2002-15641 A
[Patent document 11] JP-2005-85866 A
There is arising a trouble that the frontward gear or the backward gear of a vehicle is mistakenly operated owing to driver's inattention. Further, there is arising another trouble that detection of an obstacle is delayed by lapse of memory etc., to cause a confusion to mistakenly step on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal. In order to prevent such troubles, a surrounding obstacle is detected at the time when the vehicle starts moving. When the detected distance to the obstacle is small, vehicle control systems carry out a starting-off suppression. Patent documents 1-5 describe such technologies.
The above-mentioned conventional configurations assume that incorrect starting-off preventive measures are naturally necessary to thereby study specific measures of how to suppress starting-off. In this regard, however, the conventional technology or configuration makes almost no consideration to the circumstantial analysis technique whether a measure is really required to prevent a danger. For instance, there may be a case that an obstacle exists around the vehicle and the distance to the obstacle is small. Even in such a case, a driver may intentionally start the movement of the vehicle for entering a garage, performing parallel parking, or moving sideward. An expert driver may not slow down the speed of the vehicle until the distance to the obstacle becomes significantly small. However, the above conventional technology except Patent document 2 automatically performs starting-off suppression and alarm process based on the relation between the distance to the obstacle and the starting-off direction, speed, or acceleration of the vehicle. Sufficient scene analysis is not conducted as to whether the measure to prevent incorrect starting-off is really necessary or as to whether the start is based on the driver's intention but not the incorrect driving operation. Naturally, in the case that the starting-off is based on the driver's intension, the starting-off suppression process and alarm process are executed redundantly in spite of not being incorrect starting-off actually. This poses a technical problem to rather provide a user with a troublesomeness.
In Patent document 2, a degree of a contact probability is calculated based on the direction and distance of an obstacle existing at a surrounding area. The driver's attention tendency is determined. The degree of the contact probability is amended further based on the determination result. It is noted that the attention tendency determination is based on the occurrence tendency analysis of the sudden acceleration or sudden deceleration after the driver cancels the mode of the starting-off suppression. After the vehicle action occurs which leads to the sudden acceleration or obstacle interference, a vehicle control is performed to avoid those. Such a vehicle control is long overdue. It is noted that on the scene in which a person and an obstacle exist especially in a range close to the vehicle, once sudden acceleration is performed, it is too late intrinsically. On the contrary, the sudden deceleration is a driving operation which the driver should perform essentially when an obstacle etc. is recognized. Even if the above determination is useful as a reference of incorrect starting-off prevention on the scene thereafter, it is not necessarily utilized for another control action against the incorrect starting-off prevention in the scene confronted now, etc.
Thus, the above conventional technologies can only one of the two methods as follows; (i) to extend the margin of danger prediction to thereby also include the scene which originally does not need incorrect starting-off preventive measures and frequently perform starting-off suppression process of low timeliness. (ii) On the contrary, to execute the starting-off suppression process as a stopgap measure after the vehicle driving operation of sudden acceleration etc. actually takes place. Either of the above-mentioned two methods is far from the originally desired control system, in which the incorrect starting-off preventive control be timely and properly executed in the truly needed scene.